I know what you are saying, but I try and find a more neutral stance as far as the links. The accusations can fly both ways when clearly specific bias of a site is used by either side.

I understand what you are saying. And many times I will find an original link from AiG or CMI to read it, and then I will read what the creationist paper has to say about it also. It depends on my personal knowledge of the subject. Sometimes the creationist will bring up a fact that I never knew and that the evo does not address. They are also usually up to date with current data and new finds.

The problem I have is that there are so many branches of science. It's hard to address all the different issues and questions that uniform/ evo academia throws out there. Evolution is a given even in their journal papers. Ratified as fact in their minds. So it's nice to have an intelligent scientist somewhere who is looking from 'the other side.' Especially in fields (like physics and math for me) that I'm weak in.

One thing that has helped me is using the bible as a touchstone or foundational base for understanding what I read that is out there. One important aspect of posting and public speaking for me is to put things into simple easy to understand terms/words.

That's a good thing if you have been given wisdom to apply that knowledge to modern science and be able to communicate it. Go for it!

I understand the principals as well, but the motivation and reasons behind what it supposedly does and the official definitions of how it does (if that makes sense) are what are confusing.

You mean a mechanism--the great mystery. They gloss over everything with selection and unguided mutation. While I see the principles of selection in biology, it seems they easily ignore design principles such as the working purpose of biological components, orderly systems, the integrated, interdependent characterization of ecology and biology, and the cyclic chemo-mechanical activity of the cell.

But I really try and use different terminologies when it comes to changes. I mean that word is clearly such a holy word for them and really, I always feel I need a shower when using some of their terms.Ã‚Â

Where I have to be careful is the "naturalism" of evolutionary science. While reason is God given--it is not all knowing. It sees "through a glass darkly." The subject of origins is historical science, an attempt to use present data to account for the past. Of course both evos and creationists are fitting data into a larger general model, and so the little "arm hypotheses" can be falsified, while keeping the general model in tact.

My point is that it can tend to insulate from direct evidence of a Creator--by virtue of bracketing Him into another category. Either religion, superstition, the supernatural, pseudoscience, or metaphysics. None of these 'subjects' does Him justice.

While I understand that God is not empirical, there is evidence for him. Intelligent design is just one--Biblically it is to be a witness to all men, whether they know him personally or not.

No absolutes means that evolution gets to go around things like the law of physics which are absolutes.

evolution has no problems with the laws of physics, especially not with the second law of thermodynamics. This is rather crucial to evolution, since without non-equilibrium thermodynamics and dissipative structures live wouldnÃ‚Â´t be possible.

evolution has no problems with the laws of physics, especially not with the second law of thermodynamics. This is rather crucial to evolution, since without non-equilibrium thermodynamics and dissipative structures live wouldnÃ‚Â´t be possible.

We are currently studying Thermodynamics in regards to Chemistry. They say it is the measure of chaos / order in a system and therefore the universe, regarding spontaneous and / or reversible reactions.

Where the chaos of the universe can only ever increase not decrease... Therein lies the problem, if natural law means that the Universe is becoming more chaotic.. How did it start out with order, if the natural disposition is towards increasing chaos of the Universe?

(I have been told by another lectuer, it is also about the loss of heat energy within an open system, however my chemistry teachers tell me this concept is wrong, however it happens whereby heat is lost by all organisms and is lost in the enviroment and cannot be recovered)

Yes this is leading to the Big Bang theory, however it is an important question none the less, as IF evolution is to be true. It leaves a massive gap as to where we came from, what is our purpose, how did life start, how did the universe start.. All these questions were answered by God. If you take God out of the picture it opens a can of worms for Science to try and deal with.

I totally disregard the "big bang theory", as nothing can't explode..lol.. Also where did the energy come from for said explosion?

We are currently studying Thermodynamics in regards to Chemistry. They say it is the measure of chaos / order in a system and therefore the universe, regarding spontaneous and / or reversible reactions.

Where the chaos of the universe can only ever increase not decrease... Therein lies the problem, if natural law means that the Universe is becoming more chaotic.. How did it start out with order, if the natural disposition is towards increasing chaos of the Universe?

the evidence shows that the early universe was actually extremely uniform - both homogeneous and isotropic. When we look at the afterglow of the Cosmic Microwave background, it varies by only tiny amounts.

(I have been told by another lectuer, it is also about the loss of heat energy within an open system, however my chemistry teachers tell me this concept is wrong, however it happens whereby heat is lost by all organisms and is lost in the enviroment and cannot be recovered)

I am guessing here you are talking about entropy?

Yes this is leading to the Big Bang theory, however it is an important question none the less, as IF evolution is to be true. It leaves a massive gap as to where we came from, what is our purpose, how did life start, how did the universe start.. All these questions were answered by God. If you take God out of the picture it opens a can of worms for Science to try and deal with.

science doesn't attempt to answer those questions. Science deals with the "why the pendulum swings in the way that it does, and how can we describe it" - not the "why did someone start the pendulum swinging?" questions. Whether you believe in God or not, science is still useful.

Big Bang models are typically only descriptions of the development of the universe as far back as we can get - the models are only applicable as far back as the physics works. Take as an analogy looking at the lifetime of a tree. By looking at the rings of the tree and examining other trees to see how they can grow, using the science of dendrochronology we can see what sorts of conditions the tree has been exposed to over its lifetime - however we can't see where the seed came from. Dendrochronology doesn't even deal with seeds for that matter and can't, but we on't dump the whole science just because it does't tell us where seeds come from.

Big Bang models are typically only descriptions of the development of the universe as far back as we can get - the models are only applicable as far back as the physics works.

Is'nt that what Ikester just said? Evolution works until you have to account for the origin of something, then they just claim "Evolution does'nt included the creation of life or the universe - only how it changes over time." Do you agree that is disingenuous? It is'nt just atheists running around ignoring physics to justify the rejection of creation, scientists are doing it too.

H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.", Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138

Big Bang models are typically only descriptions of the development of the universe as far back as we can get - the models are only applicable as far back as the physics works.

Is'nt that what Ikester just said? Evolution works until you have to account for the origin of something, then they just claim "Evolution does'nt included the creation of life or the universe - only how it changes over time." Do you agree that is disingenuous? It is'nt just atheists running around ignoring physics to justify the rejection of creation, scientists are doing it too.

Why is it disingenuous when something like the Big Bang model is not actually an attempt to say anything about God, or where things came from? The BB model is a physical model, just like General relativity, from which it is derived and therefore just as much a part of that model as planets orbiting the Sun. Notice here how gilbo12345 discounts the Big Bang model because of something the Big Bang model does not even say. That's like me saying that Christianity is wrong because it says I have to drink blood... it's a stupid reason to reject christianity, because christianity does not even say that I am supposed to drink blood.

This does work both ways by the way - if any atheists say that the BB model means there is no need for God, they are wrong too.

Big Bang models are typically only descriptions of the development of the universe as far back as we can get - the models are only applicable as far back as the physics works.

Is'nt that what Ikester just said? Evolution works until you have to account for the origin of something, then they just claim "Evolution does'nt included the creation of life or the universe - only how it changes over time." Do you agree that is disingenuous? It is'nt just atheists running around ignoring physics to justify the rejection of creation, scientists are doing it too.

H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.", Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138Enjoy.

Thanks Jason

Thats what I was getting at. Thanks for clarifying.

Ok Jet Black, what do you think a "Big Bang" is?...

Most people I know, believe that the "Big Bang" is some form of explosion... (Perhaps I should hang out with a smarter crowd...lol..wink). That was what we get taught at School. If you feel this is incorrect perhaps we should both seek to advise the education system

At any rate, when Science has to explain the formation of the Universe, different chemicals, planets, even life itself.. It will have to bend, (even break), some laws of Physics. In doing so, how can we claim that such events happens when it defies the laws that has been determined by nature itself.

I know that in retort, you'd say that God defies natural laws too, however in reponse I will say that he can do that since God is God...

Is'nt that what Ikester just said? Evolution works until you have to account for the origin of something, then they just claim "Evolution does'nt included the creation of life or the universe - only how it changes over time." Do you agree that is disingenuous? It is'nt just atheists running around ignoring physics to justify the rejection of creation, scientists are doing it too.

H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.", Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138Enjoy.

Thanks Jason

Thats what I was getting at. Thanks for clarifying.

Ok Jet Black, what do you think a "Big Bang" is?...

The ig Bang as I understand it, is an expansion of spacetime, from an extremely hot and dense early stage to what it is now. Quite why it expanded from this very early stage, I don't know, and science cannot tell us.

Most people I know, believe that the "Big Bang" is some form of explosion... (Perhaps I should hang out with a smarter crowd...lol..wink). That was what we get taught at School. If you feel this is incorrect perhaps we should both seek to advise the education system

yeah, the education system does need sorting out if this is what is being taught. Some of the concepts though are a bit strange, and not easily explained - certainly not to high school kids.

At any rate, when Science has to explain the formation of the Universe, different chemicals, planets, even life itself.. It will have to bend, (even break), some laws of Physics. In doing so, how can we claim that such events happens when it defies the laws that has been determined by nature itself.

well it will be interesting to see if anyting that happens requires such changes to physics.

I know that in retort, you'd say that God defies natural laws too, however in reponse I will say that he can do that since God is God...

when everything was very close together. Basically you take the evidence of the recession velocities of galaxies and the CMB and wind the clock back. We can only get to a certain point with current theory, and that's what I mean by the early stage (where our current understanding of science becomes inadequate)

Theism doesn't really settle the question.If God created the Universe, where did God come from?

I lie awake at night worrying over questions like that.Where did Cain get his wife?What does the turtle stand on?What does the first chair oboist tune to?

Hi tomato,

I hope I can reduce some of your night worries Or perhaps I'll make them worse God is the Creator, He does not have a beginning nor an end. He is UN-created. He is eternal. He is both the alpha and omega. If this were not so, He would not be God. He is the source of all existence itself. He IS. He is the "I AM".

As for Cain? In the beginning, the taboo of one marrying a relative did not exist. We must remember the conditions of genetics and the earth were not as they are now if we are to believe that all was made good in the beginning, without death, without sickness and the long lives they lived, even after the fall. It was later that marrying a close relative was warned against and the natural revultion most of us have in considering it anyway! Although you get some....ahem...exceptions out there.

So the only way for the human race to have multiplied was by the first two human beings and via their own offspring. God did not create a load of people at onetime. He created one male and one female of each kind and instructed all to multiply and fill the earth.

Had a chuckle at your other worries! Don't think I can help you out there

evolution has no problems with the laws of physics, especially not with the second law of thermodynamics. This is rather crucial to evolution, since without non-equilibrium thermodynamics and dissipative structures live wouldnÃ‚Â´t be possible.

In order for evolution to start, laws have to be broken.

1) Something has to come from nothing.2) Matter and energy have to be created from no source.3) Life has to come from lifelessness (abiogenesis).4) Laws have to first not exist so that a "god did it" situation will allow these laws to be broken. And the impossible to happen.5) Then these laws have to come into play at just the right moment so that chaos becomes order.6) And these laws also come from nothing. And some how they know just how to work so that each can work together and not interfere with any other.

Yet no one can tell us where these laws came from.At what point were they enforced.Or how they knew how to work so that what we see can exist.

1) Something has to come from nothing.2) Matter and energy have to be created from no source.3) Life has to come from lifelessness (abiogenesis).4) Laws have to first not exist so that a "god did it" situation will allow these laws to be broken. And the impossible to happen.5) Then these laws have to come into play at just the right moment so that chaos becomes order.6) And these laws also come from nothing. And some how they know just how to work so that each can work together and not interfere with any other.

Yet no one can tell us where these laws came from.At what point were the enforced.Or how they knew how to work so that what we see can exist.

Can't say it better than that

To add to point 6) The universe is so finely tuned that any tiny change in its make-up is presumed to cause catastrophy and ruin... I have heard it descibed as the world is balancing on a knifes edge.

We are currently studying Thermodynamics in regards to Chemistry. They say it is the measure of chaos / order in a system and therefore the universe, regarding spontaneous and / or reversible reactions.

Well, the labeling as chaos/order is always a bit misleading. You have always the colloquial meaning of the words in the back of your mind. A cleaned up room and a fully messed up and dirty room have the same entropy. Important are the numbers of degree of freedom of a system. As you will learn in chemistry entropy could be overcome by enthalpy and in far from equilibrium thermodynamics there are also temporary decreases in entropy. You donÃ‚Â´t learn about these in normal chemistry classes, as these are more about equilibrium reactions. If you have a class about supramolecular chemistry you might hear about that.

Where the chaos of the universe can only ever increase not decrease... Therein lies the problem, if natural law means that the Universe is becoming more chaotic.. How did it start out with order, if the natural disposition is towards increasing chaos of the Universe?

Well, itÃ‚Â´s logic when in goes to more chaos/ less order, it has to start more ordered. I told you about degrees of freedom. The expansion itself produces a lot of degrees of freedom/entropy.

(I have been told by another lectuer, it is also about the loss of heat energy within an open system, however my chemistry teachers tell me this concept is wrong, however it happens whereby heat is lost by all organisms and is lost in the enviroment and cannot be recovered)

ItÃ‚Â´s not about the loss about heat energy. ThatÃ‚Â´s a bit sloppy formulation. ItÃ‚Â´s about the dissipation of heat, and the loss therein to perform usable work in that process.

Yes this is leading to the Big Bang theory, however it is an important question none the less, as IF evolution is to be true. It leaves a massive gap as to where we came from, what is our purpose, how did life start, how did the universe start.. All these questions were answered by God. If you take God out of the picture it opens a can of worms for Science to try and deal with.

Science canÃ‚Â´t say anything nor will it ever say anything about purpose. The other points might some day be answered by science, or not. At least we try. Nobody knows if there is a god. For some itÃ‚Â´s inevitable for some itÃ‚Â´s just unneeded. Science has enough worms to work with whether there is a god or not.

I totally disregard the "big bang theory", as nothing can't explode..lol.. Also where did the energy come from for said explosion?

The big bang is no explosion, just an expansion of space. And the big bang is no breaking the law of physics. ItÃ‚Â´s the complete opposite: the exact application of the today known laws of physics. There is a point where these laws donÃ‚Â´t work anymore: The exact time of the "big bang" until 10^-43 sec after that. To calculate what happened at that time scientists try to combine the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics in one theory.